Abstinence 'is not realistic,' Palin's daughter says

[KittenKoder]

Here's the thing that studies like that forget, poor people join gangs to fight back, rich kids become emo.

Jesus Christ. If you don't understand research, don't make yourself look even more ignorant.

Catz ... take a joke sometime.

 

[catzmeow]

Because if they acknowledge that a mom and dad are the best family unit then that blows up any argument that two dads or two moms are just as good.
Or a dad and a goat. Or mom and a monkey etc...

In all fairness, I am not sure that gender makes a big difference in the two parent thing. I think that it largely has more to do with economic and emotional stability, from the perspective of the child. I'm just generalizing that most often, the missing 2nd parent is a father (though not always).

 

[catzmeow]

Catz ... take a joke sometime.

My bad.

Ha. Ha. Ha.
Is that better? Was I semi-convincing?

 

[KittenKoder]

Okay ... a tough question: Are those against abortion also for forced adoptions or sterilizations?

Why would we be? And, for the record, I'm not against all abortions, just those after 24 weeks when the fetus is viable.

Here's the thing, often people who are against abortion also whine and moan about those same kids being on welfare most of their lives, they also complain about the kids being raised wrong and in bad environments. If they truly cared about the children they would need some solution, the only three that would make an impact are abortion, forced adoption, or forced sterilization. Otherwise you can't whine about the kids on welfare because you don't are not allowing for any solution to the problem. That is why it would be. Oh, and to be clear, not saying you in particular it's a broad statement.

 

[catzmeow]

Here's the thing, often people who are against abortion also whine and moan about those same kids being on welfare most of their lives, they also complain about the kids being raised wrong and in bad environments. If they truly cared about the children they would need some solution, the only three that would make an impact are abortion, forced adoption, or forced sterilization. Otherwise you can't whine about the kids on welfare because you don't are not allowing for any solution to the problem. That is why it would be. Oh, and to be clear, not saying you in particular it's a broad statement.

I actually agree with you on the whining part by conservatives.

For me, I'm not totally anti-welfare, but I would like it to incorporate some MANDATORY elements: mandatory education, mandatory job skills training, mandatory classes in nutrition, budgeting, and other life skills.

People make mistakes, and I totally understand that. But if we REALLY cared about poor people, we would give them the skills they need to escape from poverty, rather than keeping them trapped in dependency on the government.

I've known too many poor people who raised exceptional kids to say that we should force them to be sterilized or give up their children simply because they are poor.

 

[KittenKoder]

Here's the thing, often people who are against abortion also whine and moan about those same kids being on welfare most of their lives, they also complain about the kids being raised wrong and in bad environments. If they truly cared about the children they would need some solution, the only three that would make an impact are abortion, forced adoption, or forced sterilization. Otherwise you can't whine about the kids on welfare because you don't are not allowing for any solution to the problem. That is why it would be. Oh, and to be clear, not saying you in particular it's a broad statement.

I actually agree with you on the whining part by conservatives.

For me, I'm not totally anti-welfare, but I would like it to incorporate some MANDATORY elements: mandatory education, mandatory job skills training, mandatory classes in nutrition, budgeting, and other life skills.

People make mistakes, and I totally understand that. But if we REALLY cared about poor people, we would give them the skills they need to escape from poverty, rather than keeping them trapped in dependency on the government.

I've known too many poor people who raised exceptional kids to say that we should force them to be sterilized or give up their children simply because they are poor.

The reason these do not exist is because they cost more, a LOT more, than just giving someone money for life, especially today. The people who can train for these charge way more than they are worth. They use to have programs you could apply for that would take you through all your education, but they were all cut because they couldn't afford it for the few who did utilize them.

 

[Againsheila]

Here's the thing, often people who are against abortion also whine and moan about those same kids being on welfare most of their lives, they also complain about the kids being raised wrong and in bad environments. If they truly cared about the children they would need some solution, the only three that would make an impact are abortion, forced adoption, or forced sterilization. Otherwise you can't whine about the kids on welfare because you don't are not allowing for any solution to the problem. That is why it would be. Oh, and to be clear, not saying you in particular it's a broad statement.

I actually agree with you on the whining part by conservatives.

For me, I'm not totally anti-welfare, but I would like it to incorporate some MANDATORY elements: mandatory education, mandatory job skills training, mandatory classes in nutrition, budgeting, and other life skills.

People make mistakes, and I totally understand that. But if we REALLY cared about poor people, we would give them the skills they need to escape from poverty, rather than keeping them trapped in dependency on the government.

I've known too many poor people who raised exceptional kids to say that we should force them to be sterilized or give up their children simply because they are poor.

Unfortunately that doesn't work. Oprah discovered that the hard way when she put up $40 million of her own money to provide training for poor single parents. It was a disaster. The study concluded that people didn't want to better themselves when they could get paid to sit on their butts at home no matter how little that payment amounted to.

Yes, some poor people do raise exceptional kids and yes we do need to provide help for them, but the truth is that many of those single moms are lousy moms by choice, and yes, I've known some of them. When a girl says in front of her two kids almost everyday that she should give them up for adoption because she can't afford them and then spends over $100 on tupperware (and this was 20 years ago), there's something desperately wrong.

I was attacked by a friend for agreeing with the mother in question, she said that was a thoughtless thing for me to say. I pointed out that any mother who says in front of her kids repeatedly that she should give them up for adoption SHOULD give them up for adoption, it's pretty obvious they'd be better off with someone else.

 

[Anguille]

sorry--poverty does not equal a shitty life in my book.

Low income is one thing, poverty is another. Poverty need not equal a shitty life but it can equal a short one if you don't have basic medical care and it certainly puts people at risk for starvation.

Did you miss the part where giving up a child for adoption is an option.

I am just calling for the parents of said child to pay for any and all care of that child until it is adopted. Therefore no safe haven laws where a child can simply be abandoned with no consequences.

"I am just calling for the parents of said child to pay for any and all care of that child until it is adopted."

In other words what I said you had said. Let the child serve as a method of punishment. And good luck to him/her!!

 

[KittenKoder]

Here's the thing, often people who are against abortion also whine and moan about those same kids being on welfare most of their lives, they also complain about the kids being raised wrong and in bad environments. If they truly cared about the children they would need some solution, the only three that would make an impact are abortion, forced adoption, or forced sterilization. Otherwise you can't whine about the kids on welfare because you don't are not allowing for any solution to the problem. That is why it would be. Oh, and to be clear, not saying you in particular it's a broad statement.

I actually agree with you on the whining part by conservatives.

For me, I'm not totally anti-welfare, but I would like it to incorporate some MANDATORY elements: mandatory education, mandatory job skills training, mandatory classes in nutrition, budgeting, and other life skills.

People make mistakes, and I totally understand that. But if we REALLY cared about poor people, we would give them the skills they need to escape from poverty, rather than keeping them trapped in dependency on the government.

I've known too many poor people who raised exceptional kids to say that we should force them to be sterilized or give up their children simply because they are poor.

Unfortunately that doesn't work. Oprah discovered that the hard way when she put up $40 million of her own money to provide training for poor single parents. It was a disaster. The study concluded that people didn't want to better themselves when they could get paid to sit on their butts at home no matter how little that payment amounted to.

Yes, some poor people do raise exceptional kids and yes we do need to provide help for them, but the truth is that many of those single moms are lousy moms by choice, and yes, I've known some of them. When a girl says in front of her two kids almost everyday that she should give them up for adoption because she can't afford them and then spends over $100 on tupperware (and this was 20 years ago), there's something desperately wrong.

I was attacked by a friend for agreeing with the mother in question, she said that was a thoughtless thing for me to say. I pointed out that any mother who says in front of her kids repeatedly that she should give them up for adoption SHOULD give them up for adoption, it's pretty obvious they'd be better off with someone else.

You almost described my mother .... except mine was married until a month after I finally left the house. I hate her still ... *sigh* Oh well. But I don't see single parents as the issue, married ones have just as many problems however because of the presence of a second parent there is less of a chance for the child to be a lost cause, my father was the one I leaned toward because he was just ... a decent red neck agnostic (yes they do exist). My mother and father finally divorced and now guess what, my mother was on welfare the last time I saw her, almost too fat to move, and didn't want to work.

 

[Anguille]

being allowed to live is punishment ?

How does being forced to live in poverty and in the complete control of a mother who did not want you equate to being allowed to live? Do you think those are conditions which promote life?

Then if people know they have to live with their mistakes, don't you think they will make greater efforts to ensure mistakes don't happen?

If people have to live with the consequences of their actions, don't you think that maybe, just maybe they will act more responsibly?

You are absolving people from responsibility for their actions and that does no one, even "innocent little babies" any favors.

If you are so deterrmined to punish these mothers, put them in jail. That is how modern societies deal with criminals.

You contine to call children mistakes that must be used as tools for teaching responsability.
I do not think that is a repsonsable way to teach responsabilty. It's way to be a hypocrite and a holier than thou .
It teaches by example not to consider children as human beings in their own right, but merely as tools in some sort of twisted lesson on the responsabilties of humans to other humans.
I think it could be you just want to stick it to anyone who might have need of welfare at a vulnerable age. Otherwise you would be in favor of normal methods of punishment. Incarceration.

 

[Againsheila]

I actually agree with you on the whining part by conservatives.

For me, I'm not totally anti-welfare, but I would like it to incorporate some MANDATORY elements: mandatory education, mandatory job skills training, mandatory classes in nutrition, budgeting, and other life skills.

People make mistakes, and I totally understand that. But if we REALLY cared about poor people, we would give them the skills they need to escape from poverty, rather than keeping them trapped in dependency on the government.

I've known too many poor people who raised exceptional kids to say that we should force them to be sterilized or give up their children simply because they are poor.

Unfortunately that doesn't work. Oprah discovered that the hard way when she put up $40 million of her own money to provide training for poor single parents. It was a disaster. The study concluded that people didn't want to better themselves when they could get paid to sit on their butts at home no matter how little that payment amounted to.

Yes, some poor people do raise exceptional kids and yes we do need to provide help for them, but the truth is that many of those single moms are lousy moms by choice, and yes, I've known some of them. When a girl says in front of her two kids almost everyday that she should give them up for adoption because she can't afford them and then spends over $100 on tupperware (and this was 20 years ago), there's something desperately wrong.

I was attacked by a friend for agreeing with the mother in question, she said that was a thoughtless thing for me to say. I pointed out that any mother who says in front of her kids repeatedly that she should give them up for adoption SHOULD give them up for adoption, it's pretty obvious they'd be better off with someone else.

You almost described my mother .... except mine was married until a month after I finally left the house. I hate her still ... *sigh* Oh well. But I don't see single parents as the issue, married ones have just as many problems however because of the presence of a second parent there is less of a chance for the child to be a lost cause, my father was the one I leaned toward because he was just ... a decent red neck agnostic (yes they do exist). My mother and father finally divorced and now guess what, my mother was on welfare the last time I saw her, almost too fat to move, and didn't want to work.

Just imagine how much worse it would have been for you if your mother had been a single mom and you didn't have your father to count on, then tell me children in single parent families aren't "at risk".

 

[KittenKoder]

Unfortunately that doesn't work. Oprah discovered that the hard way when she put up $40 million of her own money to provide training for poor single parents. It was a disaster. The study concluded that people didn't want to better themselves when they could get paid to sit on their butts at home no matter how little that payment amounted to.

Yes, some poor people do raise exceptional kids and yes we do need to provide help for them, but the truth is that many of those single moms are lousy moms by choice, and yes, I've known some of them. When a girl says in front of her two kids almost everyday that she should give them up for adoption because she can't afford them and then spends over $100 on tupperware (and this was 20 years ago), there's something desperately wrong.

I was attacked by a friend for agreeing with the mother in question, she said that was a thoughtless thing for me to say. I pointed out that any mother who says in front of her kids repeatedly that she should give them up for adoption SHOULD give them up for adoption, it's pretty obvious they'd be better off with someone else.

You almost described my mother .... except mine was married until a month after I finally left the house. I hate her still ... *sigh* Oh well. But I don't see single parents as the issue, married ones have just as many problems however because of the presence of a second parent there is less of a chance for the child to be a lost cause, my father was the one I leaned toward because he was just ... a decent red neck agnostic (yes they do exist). My mother and father finally divorced and now guess what, my mother was on welfare the last time I saw her, almost too fat to move, and didn't want to work.

Just imagine how much worse it would have been for you if your mother had been a single mom and you didn't have your father to count on, then tell me children in single parent families aren't "at risk".

They are ... on an added note ... my father turned out to be bisexual ... how odd is that, the "gay" agnostic parent being the better of the two.

 

[Anguille]

Women are never exempted from the consequences of their sexual behavior. No matter what the outcome.

That's the truth in a nutshell. Neither women or men are exempted. Laws try to modify and even out how the consequences will affect the rights and lives of both men and women, boys and girls. But they can only do a jerry rigged job of it. Biology is what it is. And modern medicine is a woman's best friend. May women always have recourse to it.

 

[AllieBaba]

#1; there is no correlation between legalized killing of babies and a decrease in welfare. It's a straw man, a red herring, and a completely false argument for abortion. Welfare recipient numbers have increased exponentially, despite the fact that abortion is readily available to all and the primary argument in support of abortion is it's supposed to be the magical cure that will erase poverty and child abuse. Not true.

#2. #1 makes the statement about conservatives whining about the cost of welfare a non-issue. To pay for abortions in addition to paying more and more for welfare is idiotic, but as #1 shows, is simply a diversion which has no purpose since there's no evidence that abortion and welfare numbers depend on each other in any way....except that as we have increased abortion availability, we have sexualized our children and devalued them to the point where child abuse of every kind continues to grow with leaps and bounds.

#3, we DO have job training programs in place, and they DO work wonderfully. THe federal and state governments REQUIRE welfare recipients to participate. They work, and they are a requirement, so those who don't participate lose their eligibility. We have wonderful success with them.

There are a hardcore population of people that are just unemployable and untrainable. They are mentally ill, abused, and/or addicted. They are unable to help themselves and that number stays the same regardless of what you do.

But we do have employment programs which go hand in hand with welfare, they are mandatory, they are intense, and they are effective.

 

[Anguille]

It's no different than the pill in that a woman can ovulate the month immediately following the use of either.

vasectomy and tubal ligation are more similar in their results and the effect on the body than are birth control and abortion.

Actually, you are wrong. Abortion can have longterm impacts on fertility, including creating a greater risk of tubal pregnancy through scarring at the fallopian tubes. Abortion is SURGERY, with all of the risks that surgery entails. It is not a cosmetic procedure like having a mole removed from your ass.

You need to catch up with current events. Not all abortive techniques involve surgery and none are designed to make a permanent end to reproductive abilities as vasectomy does.

 

[AllieBaba]

Almost all abortions are surgical ones.

 

[Anguille]

Maybe rent Juno and see if you can think of another possibility.

Ha ha ha!! Figures you would be someone who looks to movies for a view of real life.

 

[Anguille]

When the responsibility is forced and shoved off onto them it's very bad for the baby. Ever hear of child abuse and infanticide?

You are nothing more than a standard issue suburban white shill for the abortion industry repeating misinformation as if it were fact.


But, I love how you equate poverty with child abuse and infanticide. The poor are just evil, aren't they? Your arrogance is astounding. It's good that they have middle class white women like you, Anguille, to protect them from themselves.

You're no different Margaret Sanger, it appears. And you've bought her eugenics-based approach to population control hook, line and sinker.

Did Gunny move this to the conspiracy forum after this post? I'll have to check.




Just curious why you would think I'm a suburbanite? Or middle class?

 

[KittenKoder]

#3, we DO have job training programs in place, and they DO work wonderfully. THe federal and state governments REQUIRE welfare recipients to participate. They work, and they are a requirement, so those who don't participate lose their eligibility. We have wonderful success with them.

There are a hardcore population of people that are just unemployable and untrainable. They are mentally ill, abused, and/or addicted. They are unable to help themselves and that number stays the same regardless of what you do.

But we do have employment programs which go hand in hand with welfare, they are mandatory, they are intense, and they are effective.

Allie ... no, especially not everywhere. The ones readily available (without going through a ton of hoops) are no federal funded, and the others are not just for welfare. Also only those states that do still have them (a few) may require them but the majority do not. Remember, I am speaking from experience, I had to do it all without their aid, I had to prove myself without an education to succeed because it was impossible. Everytime found a program it was shut down due to lack of funding. Of course Seattle is pretty much bankrupt but we aren't the exception in this matter. Junkies are not untrainable, they just don't want to get better. They whine and moan for attention, claim they want to get clean, only to take the money they get and buy more drugs or beer with it (in Seattle they had to crack down on it so bad that anyone with even a conviction cannot get welfare without showing a long term commitment to a dry program of some sort). All of us who are disabled (yes I am and I admit it openly) are still trainable in something, even the mentally retarded are capable of working in labor positions (I use to train them when I was working in such jobs, and they learned as well as any others could) and physical disabilities can be overcome with jobs which are not hindered by those. Even Steven Hawkins managed to work. Abused ... again personal experience, but I over came that a long time ago, at least well enough to work for 10 years before needing disability, and then once on disability and going through homelessness I still managed to get somewhere, in spite of a lack of schooling nor any programs that would help. The only program that is really available is only available for 18-24 year olds, no others.

 

[Anguille]

I know several women who've had abortions and with one exception, they've all regretted it. The one exception has had multiple abortions and uses it as a form of birth control, her ONLY form of birth control.

I have no doubt you are telling the truth, Sheila, as you are one of the posters here I've come to trust does not lie or exagerate. I am certain what you say about those women you know is true.
In my case, no woman I know who has had an abortion regretted it. Even 16 years later, one who is related to me tells me how glad she is she did it because otherwise she and her husband would not have the two kids they have now.
I knew one woman who did give up her baby for adoption. She could never bring herself to have another child. She felt so bad for what she did and feared the baby fell into the wrong hands.
That is what the women I know say.
In any case both of us have only anecdotal evidence for what abortion or release for adoption does to a woman. It may have something to do with the cultural norms our firends and we each grew up with and how we later came to view abortion versus adoption versus having an unwanted child.